I would like a Teslatron, please.

Tags: , , ,

15 Responses:

  1. kimberley66 says:

    ooooo, I want one too. . . such pretty colors and art deco-ness. . ..

  2. buz says:

    And you could take its picture with this.

  3. benchilada says:

    You should groove on <lj user="atomic_robo">.

    Some of the most intelligent reading I've found online in ages.
    First person stories of an intelligent Atomic Robot built by Tesla in the 1920's.

    Incredible stuff.

  4. editer says:

    Am I the only one who looked at that and immediately thought, "warp core"?

  5. xthread says:

    I am now filled with a vision of how the Crystal Palace might have looked with a Teslatron replacing the central fountain...

  6. sircyan says:

    This fountain is actually really neat to see in person. It's at the big hotel/casino in Niagara Falls, Ontario; my girlfriend and I were there a few months back for a wedding. The blue pulsates all different colors: purple, red, green, etc, and there's various moving parts and stuff. It's actually quite neat.

    It also performs a bit of a 'water show' every 30 or 60 minutes, with synchronized music and changing colors. Neat stuff.


    • gytterberg says:

      It's in Niagara falls? That's so bizarre. I mean, I see why there are extravagent water fountains in, say, Las Vegas, but fucking Niagara Falls? How is it supposed to look like anything but lunchmeat when you've just come from, you know, Niagara Falls?

    • valacosa says:

      Have any pictures? My batteries died and my memory card was full when I was there, and now I'm kicking myself.

      • sircyan says:

        Sure, here you go. These are professional, high-resolution photos as taken by the wedding photographer. I selected the two best out of the bunch. The resolution is 2000x3000 pixels, and the files are about 3MB and 4MB respectively.


        I was the best man, so, I'm in the lower right in photo one (GP7N3236), and second from the left in photo two (GP7N3243).


        • cylan says:

          Not to be disparaging, but I hope that wasn't an expensive pro photogapher. The lens he used wasn't all that great, as there's some really excessive purple fringing in GP7N3243. And a much stronger fill flash would have been in order (and perhaps a second flash unit for 3236), so the colors from the Teslatron's central column weren't completely blown out (not to mention everything from the glass ceiling). Some of the people in both photos are out of focus, and there isn't much detail in the bride's dress (overexposed).

          • sircyan says:

            Fortunately, it wasn't my wedding ;) There were a few other things that were done "on the cheap", so to speak, but it must be bad karma or something for me to say disparaging things about another's wedding, so I'll keep quiet about the rest :)

            The photographer, on the other hand, was really friendly (indeed the most friendly of all the staff that was hired for the wedding.) I know nothing of professional photography, so I don't pretend to even know. Although, what sorts of things should one look for when seeking a professional photographer? I assume it's one of those "you get what you pay for" things (i.e., more expensive = better quality).

            The other neat thing that I forgot to mention was that there were these huge, Roman-esque buildings all over the place just before the falls themselves. Sort of like this one:


            The photo was taken by me, and I'm not a professional photographer, so you'll have to excuse any suckage of the shot ;) At any rate, these things were *everywhere*, and apparently they're old power plants. It would've been neat to get a tour through one, somehow, but we didn't have nearly enough time.


            • cylan says:

              First, I should say that you should take everything I say with a grain of salt. I'm not a pro (and have never shot a wedding), but I have been studying and practicing photography for a while.

              For a photographer, it certainly pays to be as friendly as possible, and that goes doubly so for those who shoot weddings :)

              But I'll tell you what, huge percentages of advanced, freelancing, semipro and pro photographers (basically anybody who would be in a position to be asked, pretty much) wouldn't touch a wedding gig. Some have said that they would pay *not* to shoot a wedding. It's demanding work; among the most difficult a photographer could attempt. For all of the "important moments", you get *one* chance. The attendees don't want to be hassled into a pose for portraits, they want to enjoy themselves: you have to be fast and precise (setting up gear takes time and effort, this is why most/all of the good pros have assistants).

              That being said, the really good photographers do charge a lot. They usually come equipped with medium format gear, pro-level 35mm (or digital equiv.) gear, and a big set of flash kit. I wouldn't be surprised if all of the gear tops $10,000. If a guy shows up with with a 350D w/kit lens and an accessory flash, you know he's a cheap one :)

              Then, a good pro (or an associate) will spend time working with the photos in post-process, to get an excellent print. This is quite a vital step, without it you'll end up with mediocre results.

              At the end of the day, "you get what you pay for" is a pretty good way of sizing up the topic. Cheap guys usually don't have the equipment (dare I say talent, in some cases too) or spend the time working on the photos to make the beautiful photographs most people like to see from their wedding. On the other hand, if you just want someone who knows how to handle their camera and has one good enough to make perhaps an 11x14" print but it's isn't all that important really, then the cheaper guy is the right choice.

  7. decibel45 says:

    I've been there. It's actually very fitting, given it's locale.